Appeal No. 2002-0930
Application 09/291,828
asserted two different rationales to support the rejection of
independent claim 1, a first based on Figure 2 of Cheng ‘402,
wherein the examiner urges that there is an intermediate link
(which has no numerical reference) shown in Figure 2 coupled to
and extending between driven link (2) and driving link (3)
thereof, and a second rationale based on Figure 5 of Cheng ‘402,
wherein Prior Art Figure 5 is said to show an intermediate link
(C3) having opposite ends pivoted to driving link (C4) and driven
link (C2). According to the examiner (answer, page 5), it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellants’ invention “to incorporate the intermediate link as
shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 5 in order for the support [sic] the
driven link and the driving link and to cause the rotation
movement.”
The examiner additionally points out on page 5 of the answer
that it should be noted that Cheng ‘402 “addressed the
intermediate link element of prior art (see col. 1 line 25-29).”
On page 6 of the answer, the examiner makes note of each of Prior
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007